On November 25th, co-conspirator 3 filed a lawsuit against the governor of Georgia, falsely alleging massive election fraud, accomplished through the voting machine company's election software and hardware. Before the lawsuit was even filed, the defendant retweeted a post promoting it. The defendant The defendant did this despite the fact that when he had discussed Co-Conspirator 3's far-fetched public claims regarding the voting machine company in private with advisors, the defendant had conceded that they were unsupported and that Co-Conspirator 3 sounded crazy. Co-conspirator 3's Georgia lawsuit was dismissed on December seventh.

The voice you're hearing is renowned actor Peter Coyote. He's reading an excerpt from the State of Georgia versus Donald John Trump et al, the Fulton County Georgia Indictment.

On December third, Co-Conspirator 1 orchestrated a presentation to a judiciary Subcommittee of the Georgia State Senate, with the intention of misleading state senators into blocking the ascertainment of legitimate electors. During the presentation, an agent of the defendant and co-conspirator 1 falsely claimed that more than 10,000 dead people voted in Georgia. That afternoon, a senior advisor to the defendant told the defendant's chief of staff through text messages, Just an FYI, a campaign lawyer and his team verified that the 10K supposed dead people voting in Georgia is not accurate. It was alleged in co-conspirator 1's hearing today. The senior advisor clarified that he believed that the actual number was twelve. Also on December third, the defendant issued a tweet amplifying the knowingly false claims made in CoConspirator One's presentation in Georgia. Wow. Blockbuster testimony taking place right now in Georgia. Ballet stuffing by Dems when Republicans were forced to leave the large counting room. Plenty more coming. But this alone leads to an easy win of the state.

Hello, and welcome to part two of this special series of Prosecuting Donald Trump. I'm Andrew Weissman, and today I'm here with Melissa Murray. She is a constitutional law scholar. She's a law professor at NYU and my colleague. We are here together doing this because she is the co-author with me of our new book, The Trump Indictments: The Historic Charging Documents with Commentary. This book collects four criminal indictments against Donald Trump and features extensive annotations, commentary, and introduction from both of us. It also includes something that I think we're going to talk about, which is a cast of characters in a timeline. Because I have to say, as I was listening to this, Melissa, I was thinking, Oh, that cast of characters comes in pretty handy. You and I, actually, as part of our day jobs, following all of this, but I actually turn to that cast of characters a lot. Anyway, welcome, Melissa, to Prosecuting Donald Trump.

Thank you for having me back. I can't believe we made it through part one, and now we're at part two. In between, you made an appearance at our podcast, Strick Scrutiny. It's great to be back here. I know.

I loved it. I loved it. That is one great podcast. In the first episode, We covered the New York and DC Indictments. Today, we're going to focus on the Georgia and Florida Indictments. Our excerpts are being read by acclaimed actors Peter Coyote and Renee Elise Goldsbury. We just were listening to Peter Coyote speak.

I love Peter Coyote. I've loved Peter Coyote since ET.

It's so funny because I am old enough that I, too, think of him in terms of his movies. But as soon as you hear that voice, you might be saying to yourself, Where have I heard that? Where have I heard it? And you know where you've heard it? Every Ken Burns document, it's such a Ken Burns voice.

He's just a great character actor in a lot of different roles and just instantly recognizable, beautiful voice. I have to say, he really made this part of the entitlement sing. Even though what he's talking about is absolutely Fouquha.

What part of the law is that? I missed that in 1L classes.

Talmudic law. I mean, it's absolutely insane, right? So what he just read was basically the scheme to accuse Democrats of ballot stuffing and getting dead people to cast ballots. And apparently, it was sweeping and widespread and numerous, all of these people. When it turns out, in fact, there were maybe 12 questionable ballots, and they all could have been attributed to just like, clerical errors.

This is what's so amazing to me is, of course, if it actually happened and there was a scheme to have dead people vote. It's like, I see dead people. This, to me, is such a beautiful way when I think about... One of the things we talk about in the book is strategically, what is the prosecutor doing? How are they framing this so that we get them to think about what choices are being made and not made? Here, this whole idea of what was happening behind the scenes and what was being said to the public. This is such a great example because to the public, it's like, I see dead people. But privately, the- I see 12 people. Right. Did I say dead? I meant 12. Yeah, 12. There's this disparity when you're trying to show criminal intent that Did he know that he was doing wrongdoing? And that, of course, that's what you need in a criminal case. This difference between what he is being told internally and what he then is touting publicly because the indictment is so replete with that. And this is such a great example of he's saying, Oh, all these dead people did it.

But privately, he's being told that's not true.

No, I mean, it goes straight to the entire question of mental state, which is going to be a huge question across a number of these indictments, but they're getting right to the point here. He knew this was a falsehood. He nonetheless perpetrated it. If that is the case, then they've made their case.

Absolutely. When I worked on the Enron case, that was, how do you explain mark-to-market accounting to a jury? We were just like, Oh, my God, this is explaining calculus. How are we going to do it? After thinking long and hard, it was very much this inside story, outside story, and just trying to deal with it. We still did have to deal with the substance, but it was just, how do you communicate this to a jury so they can understand and get what this is? And especially because here, so much of the charge in this case and in the DC case is about fraud. And so the idea of what they know internally versus what they're saying externally is such a great theme.

This is actually really interesting that you've raised Enron. It's been a long time since I've thought about Enron, and obviously, you thought about it at the time in much more detail than I did. But it's a similar allegation here. There is what's happening in terms of the stock price and what the business is doing, and then what they are touting to the outside world in order to elevate the stock price and to enrich themselves. It's a similar thing here. There's this allegation that they know what is happening in terms of the ballots, that this has been a validly conducted election. And yet in order to sway the legislature into thinking that they cannot certify Georgia's state of electors, they are pushing these claims that the election was fraudulently conducted. I mean, two different kinds of enrichment, certainly, but enriching nonetheless.

Yeah, and the same immorality, the same type of person. I'd say one other thing that I think is similar. We used to say, the prosecutors who are on Enron, that when you think about Enron, it wasn't about the Jeff Skillings and the Ken Leys and the Andy Faste. They're always going to be people who are committing fraud. There are always going to be those bad actors. What was unusual about Enron was the complicity, was the enablers, was just... I mean, the Hannah Reg problem.

The lawyers, the accountants, all of this.

Yes, the people who went along, the banality of evil, the people who went along with it. And so that, to me, is just the same mindset of how power and money, fear, can lead to not taking these people on. But Melissa, should we listen to some more and then come back and talk about it.

Let the dulcet tones of Peter Coyote just wash over me. Let's go.

So let's take a quick break and go to those dulcet tones.

Here on MSNBC, we are staying on top of several fast-moving stories.

Today's news requires more facts. A new report finds the climate crisis is getting much worse. More context. We are seeing record numbers of people crossing into the United States, just in the Southern border. And more ground covered. The mission will continue to carry out regime change in the Gaza Strip.

The world's never been harder to understand.

That's why it's never been more important to try MSNBC. Understand more.

Hi, everyone. It's Katie Fang. Did you know my weekly show on MSNBC is now available as a podcast? With my decades of experience as a trial lawyer, you'll get an insider's perspective on all things legal.

At a time when politics and the law are inextricably intertwined, my guests and I break down what's next and why it matters, both inside and outside the courtroom.

Search for the Katie Fange show wherever you're listening and follow.

Welcome back to this special episode of Prosecuting Donald Trump. I'm Andrew Weissman, and I'm here with my co-author and my NYU colleague, Melissa Murray. Melissa, let's listen to another from the State of Georgia versus Donald John Trump, the Fulton County Georgia Indictment, read by Peter Coyote.

On December eighth, the defendant called the Georgia Attorney General to pressure him to support an election lawsuit, filed in the Supreme Court by another state's attorney general. The Georgia attorney general told a defendant that officials had investigated various claims of election fraud in the state and were not seeing evidence to support them. On December 10th, four days before Biden's validly ascertained electors were scheduled to cast votes and send them to Congress, co-conspirator One appeared at a hearing before the Georgia House of Representatives Government Affairs Committee. Coconspirator One played the State Farm Arena video again and falsely claimed that it showed voter fraud right in front of people's eyes and was the tip of the iceberg. Then he cited two election workers by name, baselessly accused them of quite obviously, surreptitiously passing around USB ports as if they are vials of heroine or cocaine, and suggested that they were criminals whose Places of work, their homes, should have been searched for evidence of ballots, for evidence of USB ports, for evidence of voter fraud. Thereafter, the two election workers received numerous death threats. On December On October 15th, the defendant summoned the incoming acting attorney general, the incoming acting deputy attorney general, and others to the oval office to discuss allegations of election fraud.

During the meeting, the Justice Department officials specifically refuted the defendant's claims about State Farm Arena, explaining to him that the activity shown on the tape Co-Conspirator I had used was benign.

Melissa, what do you think about this tip of the iceberg, the voter fraud before your eyes? What do you make of this and the allegations that were being set forth in this part of the Georgia indictment?

So the two poll workers to whom they are referring are Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss, her daughter. These women literally had to go underground, as they reported to the January sixth subcommittee, because they were subject to so much harassing met because of these completely baseless allegations, like that they were spearheading this voter fraud. Again, just the tip of the iceberg. Apparently, there were all kinds of people facilitating election fraud throughout Georgia. Knowing that this was not the case and then impuning these two women and literally turning their lives upside down. It just boggles the mind. We know that there has already been a civil lawsuit brought by these two women against Rudy Giuliani, and he will have to pay them considerable amounts of money. But again, in the moment, you just really feel for these people. I think that's what makes this indictment very different from some of the other indictments that we've covered. There are real people who actually got hurt here. The Georgia indictment actually talks about the way in which these fraudulent claims swept up a whole bunch of people who believe them, who didn't necessarily believe them, but were nonetheless implicated by them, like Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss, and just a lot of lives turned upside down.

I think to that end, the people who say, Well, this was horrific what was happening in Georgia, what was happening in DC, but this is a scheme that ultimately failed. This is not what in the law we call an incoet crime, meaning it didn't work. Because what is alleged here and actually was proved in the civil case that there were people who were actually harmed. Yes, democracy was hurt writ large and in Georgia, and there was this attempt. But what you're talking about is there was actual harm to people. This isn't something which they just tried, but it didn't get off the ground. These are people whose lives were ruined. And that is why there was a civil verdict. The one thing I will quibble with is, if you remember, Rudy Giuliani declared bankruptcy after that verdict. So there was this huge verdict of over, I think, $140 million. And then Rudy Giuliani declares bankruptcy. So it'll be interesting to see just how much can be and whether their claim is allowed to proceed outside of the bankruptcy court, how many cents on the dollar they will get, certainly in terms of a deterrent to him that will have an effect.

But in terms of, well, one, nothing No amount of money is going to change what happened to them. But in terms of getting some award in the way that E. Jean Carroll did, they have the moral victory of the judgment. But this is where the bankruptcy law is being used by him for the moment. To escape the full consequences of his conduct. The other point I would make is I thought it was just wonderful in terms of the way that this indictment in Georgia was framed was to lay this out and to give real blood and guts and a reality to the charges. This piece may, in fact, be part of the DC trial. It is relevant to the DC trial, but the DC trial indictment reads much more... It's much more like a federal indictment. There's not these real victims. It doesn't tell a story that grabs you. Melissa, I remember when this indictment came out, you and I were talking about that it had this extra punch because of these allegations.

Yeah, I think that's right. Again, another speaking indictment, not unlike the DC indictment that Jack Smith filed, but one that has a lot of local color. I think it makes for really good reading, not just as an indictment, but just as a moment in time and what was going on. I mean, you just get a real sense of all of the different characters, no pun intended, who are wrapped up in all of this. And again, very different from the lean and mean indictment. Lots of different people feel sprawling, almost like an epic novel, if you will. So for my money, this was the most interesting and engaging indictment to read.

So let's hear one last selection from the State of Georgia versus Donald John Trump with Peter Coyote reading.

On January second, four days before Congress Congress's certification proceeding, the defendant and others called Georgia's Secretary of State. During the call, the defendant lied to the Georgia Secretary of State to induce him to alter Georgia's popular vote and call into question the validity of the Biden elector's votes, which had been transmitted to Congress weeks before. Including as follows, the defendant claimed that 5,000 dead people voted in Georgia, causing the Georgia Secretary of State to respond, Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong. The actual number were two. Two people that were dead that voted. And so your information is wrong. That was two. The defendant said that he needed to find 11,780 votes and insinuated that the Georgia Secretary of State and his counsel could be subject to criminal prosecution if they failed to find election fraud as he demanded, stating, And you're going to find that they are, which is totally illegal, it's more illegal for you than it is for them because you know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal That's a criminal offense. You can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to the Georgia Secretary of State's counsel, your lawyer.

On January sixth, the defendant publicly repeated the knowingly false insinuation that more than 10,300 dead people had voted in Georgia.

Well, Melissa, this is probably the most famous of the passages. This is the one that I think if there's any passage that the public has broken through and the public knows, it's this one because Brad Raffensberger and actually somebody on his staff had the foresight to realize they were going to need to tape this. I As I've said, Melissa, normally, let's just say when you and I speak to each other, I'm not thinking, I better tape that call because Melissa is going to lie about it. I mean, it just speaks volumes that they knew that they had to tape this because otherwise someone was going to deny that this ever happened. And so this is why we have the, you need to find 11,780 votes.

We have literally lost track of everything that happened over the last five years. And so everyone talks about this phone call as the phone call heard around the world. But in fact, there was an earlier phone call. There was. One that was allegedly made to Vladimir Zelensky, where, again, a perfect phone call, but similar vibes, right? So you find me dirt about the Biden family, and I will maybe release this military aid that Congress has appropriated for Ukraine. I think that might be part of the reason why Raffensberger and his staff thought to tape this. Because it's not as though this had not happened before. We forget. But there actually is a pattern in practice here.

Completely. When I think about the Zelensky call, that was 100% about voter fraud. That whole plan was to extort Ukraine to say it was doing an investigation into Biden and his son. They didn't care about the reality. They were like, We need you to say it in the same way that in this case, they wanted the Department of Justice to say they were investigating voter fraud. They wanted the illusion of fraud that they could use to then not count votes to overturn the election. It is just, as Nicole Wallace likes to say, there's like nothing new in Trump world. He's not that inventive.

But it is interesting how we forget. I mean, it's almost like what they say to women so that they'll have a second child. You absolutely forget what it's like to go through labor. Then that's the only reason why you'll get pregnant again and have another child. You just completely wipe it from your But there were two impeachments. I mean, it's not surprising that we lost touch with the first impeachment, but it was all about a phone call that was not unlike this phone call.

I do think, I'm not a political strategist, but I do think that there's this problem of amnesia and also getting inured to wrongdoing. And one of the things that I think Trump, just in terms of messaging, is very good at is just picking something and sticking with it like a dog with a bone. It's her emails. I feel like because he gives you such a panoply of issues to choose from that none of them stick. But there's so many examples that you do need to just find one or two and stick with them as illustrative of what he's doing. This is just a classic, but I agree with you. You hear it, and then you hear the historical precedent for it in terms of his behavior. I will say one thing else about the Rafflesberger call. One of the things that I found really chilling was the implicit threat. I'm not sure. I'm putting a lot of weight on implicit because I'm not sure that might be too kind.

That's a criminal. That's a criminal offense. Exactly. If you can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and your lawyer.

As a criminal professor teaching criminal law, that is not a crime. If Brad Rappensberger is sitting there going, There's no fraud. He has no mens rea. He's not doing anything against the law. He is actually complying with the law. So that idea of you better think twice because you know what? I control law enforcement here, and there's criminal damaclies over your head is unbelievable. And that's why, you know what? That's why good for him for taping.

I think that's exactly right, Andrew. It isn't a crime. It's actually dumb if you really want to get down to it. It's a dumb statement to make, but where up is down and down is up, this is a guy calling his own shots, according to this indictment, and trying to essentially bully people into having his way. What it means to have his way here is to discredit the voters in Georgia who cast valid votes and made a selection, and now he wants to upend that. So again, just stunning, stunning stuff here.

Just to your point, it's hard I need to step back and realize what we're talking about. This call is made by the President of the United States and his Chief of Staff.

Do you think the President of the United States could get SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, or is it just okay to have a state-level official find you 11,000 or so votes?

Melissa, I have a question. When you were in law school, did you ever think in a million years that you would be discussing that issue, let alone that people would be in a court of appeal saying, counselor, I'd like to know your position on murder and whether that's allowed.

Political murder.

I mean, it's so telling that how much the gravitational pull of how much he's debased the country and how we're talking about things.

This just seems beyond the pale. Like, nothing prepared me for this.

Yeah. I mean, there's never an excuse for intentional wrongdoing. Doing. But the idea that you would have a legitimate debate about what are the steps that you would take for safety of the country and how do you balance Civil Liberties against national security interests, that is a legitimate debate. I might vehemently disagree with somebody, but that is within the realm of normal. It reminds me of when Liz Cheney was being interviewed by Rachel Maddow, and they could agree that they disagreed on lots of substantive things. But you know what they on? Law, the rule of law, the idea that you don't threaten people to change the vote to overthrow an election. I guess the big picture of what we just heard is, thank goodness that Ravensberger taped it. We're going to take another quick pause here. When Melissa and I are back, acclaimed actor, Renee Elise Goldsbury is going to read from the Florida indictment.

What if millions of Black Americans had been compensated for slavery? Join me, tramangly, as I explore the untold story of one of the only Black Americans who ever was. I talk to his descendants and discuss how reparations forever change their family's trajectory and imagine a reality where reparations are paid to the rest of black America. Into America presents Uncounted Millions: The Power of Reparations, a Black History Month series. All episodes available now.

Join MSNBC's Simone Sanders Townsend, Michael Steele, and Alicia Menendez, as they team up to host The Weekend.

We want to get the newsmakers, the people that are in the middle of what is happening.

It's about the conversation. A lot of Americans check out a conversation conversations. We want to check them in.

Conversation we begin and that you continue all week long.

The Weekend, Saturdays and Sundays at 8:00 AM Eastern on MSNBC. Welcome back to this special episode of Prosecuting Donald Trump. I'm Andrew Weissman, and I'm here with my co-author and NYU colleague, Melissa Murray. Okay, Melissa, we're going to switch gears now and dig into the last of the four Trump indictments we cover in our book. This is the Florida Classified Documents case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith. We're really honored to have acclaimed actor, Renee Elise Goldsbury, who's going to read from the United States of America versus Donald J. Trump et al, the Southern district of Florida indictment.

On the Florida Classified Documents case. At 12:00 PM on January 20th, 2021, Trump ceased to be President as he As he departed the White House, Trump caused scores of boxes, many of which contained classified documents, to be transported to the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, where he maintained his residence. Trump was not authorized to possess or retain those classified documents. The Mar-a-Lago Club was an active social club which, between January 2021 and August 2022, hosted events for tens of thousands of members and guests. After Trump's presidency, the Mar-a-Lago Club was not an authorized location for the storage, possession, review, display, or discussion of classified documents. Nevertheless, Trump stored his boxes containing classified documents in various locations at the Mar-a-Lago Club, including in a ballroom, a bathroom and shower, an office space, his bedroom, and a storage room. On March 30th, 2022, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, opened a criminal investigation into the unlawful retention of classified documents at the Mar-a-Lago Club. A federal grand jury investigation investigation began the next month. The grand jury issued a subpoena requiring Trump to turn over all documents with classification markings. Trump endeavored to obstruct the FBI and grand jury investigations and conceal his continued retention of classified documents by, among other things, A, suggesting that his attorney falsely represent to the FBI and grand jury that Trump did not have documents called for by the grand jury subpoena.

B, directing defendant Walthe Nauta to move boxes of documents to conceal them from Trump's attorney, the FBI, and the grand jury. C, suggesting that his attorney hide or destroy documents called for by the grand jury subpoena. D, providing to the FBI and grand jury just some of the documents called for by the grand jury subpoena while claiming that he was cooperating fully. E, causing a certification to be submitted to the FBI and grand jury, falsely representing that all documents called for by the grand jury subpoena had been produced. While knowing that, in fact, not all such documents had been produced. And F, attempting to delete security camera footage at the Mar-a-Lago Club to conceal information from the FBI and grand jury.

So Renee Elise Goldsbury is absolutely amazing. An amazing voice, Tony award-winning actress for her role in Hamilton as Angelika Skyler. She originated that role on Broadway. I love her. I think she's fantastic, beautiful actress, beautiful singer, and again, really makes the Mar-a-Lago document sing. I have so many thoughts, Andrew.

Okay, shoot. What do you got?

So as you know, Andrew, I grew up in this part of Florida. I went to school in Fort pierce for most of my life. And so I've been to Palm Beach. I've seen Mar-a-Lago, and there's a lot of really interesting history here. The home Mar-a-Lago was first owned by serial heiress Marjorie Merriweather Post. Don't look at me like that, Andrew. I don't mean she's like a serial killer. She literally is a serial heiress. Her family made breakfast cereals, and that's how she got her money. A quite significant fortune that allows her to create this massive home. It's called Mar Lago because it's located on Palm Beach Island, which is this barrier island that separates the Atlantic Ocean from Lakeworth. That's why it's called Mar Lago, from the sea, Mar, to the Lake Lago. In any event, the home is massive. It's beautiful. She dies, and in her will, she bequeaths it to the National Park Service because she intended for it to be a retreat or even a winter white house. The Park Service has such a hard time maintaining it because it's so massive, it's so expensive to maintain that finally in 1981, because of an act of Congress, they turn the house back over to the post-foundation that administers the rest of her property.

Finally, in 1985, Donald Trump goes and purchases it, and it's a private residence for a long time. But then he transforms it into a private club. All to say, what we have in this indictment is essentially the retention of classified documents that are basically stored in a beach club on Palm Beach Island. Think about that. What's your problem?

What's your problem, Melissa?

What could go wrong?

What could go wrong?

A place notorious for hurricane damage, a place notorious for flooding. Of course, that's a great place to keep your most sensitive information.

And a place that, by the way, was a notorious honeypot. I mean, this was exactly what foreign adversaries targeted. And this, by the way, is not me being fanciful. I mean, we know this. There are cases involving it. So this is exactly what you would do if you were like, Oh, put a big neon sign, open for spying.

Open for business. Not a place where one would want to keep classified documents detailing United States and foreign intelligence. And that's all I want to underscore.

Wait, wasn't there a skip? Didn't Marjorie have a weather post? She didn't have a skip?

No, there's a dolphin fountain, but there's no skip.

They just didn't show you that room. We're all good. So this is when... The reason I get weepy over this is I had done national security work when I was the general counsel of the FBI. And so in order to advise the FBI director, I had the same classification level as the director. That means that not only were you cleared to see top secret documents, but also there's this category of what's called compartmented information, which is a more restricted universe within in Top Secret. So things that just because you have the top secret clearance doesn't mean you can see everything that's marked top secret. For things that are incredibly sensitive, they were called compartmented, and then you had to be read into that. I still remember the first time I went into a skif to have someone show me a compartmented document, and you sign into a skiff, you sign out of a skiff, you have no electronic devices at all in that skif. You sit there and you read it. In my case, no notes whatsoever, because if you did, you'd have to leave them. You can't take those out. There's no question I understood why this was top secret and compartmented.

I'm not saying there aren't issues when things get overclassified. I'm telling you that when things are in that level, you understand why they are done that way. All I kept on thinking about was, how do I make sure I don't have any inadvertent spill of that information and don't in any way reveal it. It's so sensitive. You're in public service for a reason. The idea that you wouldn't understand the importance of that to America and in terms of people's safety, and that you'd view these as personal and treat them cavalierly. I'm not saying that people don't make mistakes on lower-level classified things and inadvertently take them. We've obviously seen examples of that with Mike Pence and Joe Biden. This is a completely different situation. Again, leaving the criminality aside, what it tells you, if you've been in the intelligence community, is you never want to have a situation where those types of documents are again in that person's hands.

No, you're exactly right. One of the things I thought of when the search warrant was served and executed on Mar-a-Lago and the documents were discovered and then recovered was, what must this look like to our allies around the world who have turned over classified information to us and trusted us with classified information that endangers their own assets, not just ours, but also theirs? What circumstances that create for the current administration going forward, trying to conduct intelligence with other world powers to keep all of us safe.

You're A hundred % right. I remember being on a program with a former CIA director, Brennan, where he was making the point that that is not just a prospective harm, that is a current harm. It's less of a harm trying to get your allies to continue sharing because you've built up such a good relationship. But a lot of times you're trying to convince people who want to give you information, but they don't particularly want it known that they're cooperating. They understand that they don't want bombs to go off, that there's an interest in not having terrorism spread. The idea that that could happen and that it would get out and that's where the harm is. That's a current harm. It's a little bit like it's analogous to what we were just talking in the Georgia case, that this is not an incoate crime. There's real harm from just the fact of what's happening. Okay, so I told you I get weepy and serious about this. Yeah, you're getting a little teary-eyed. Okay, let's move it along. Melissa, Let's listen to another excerpt from the United States of America versus Donald J. Trump, the Southern district of Florida, Indictment, read by Renee Elise Goldsbury.

In May 2021, Trump caused some of his boxes to be brought to his summer residence at the Bedmanster Club. Like the Mar-a-Lago Club, after Trump's presidency, the Bedminister Club was not an authorized location for the storage, possession, review, display, or discussion of classified documents. On July 21st, 2021, when he was no longer President, Trump gave an interview in his office at the Bedminister Club to a writer and a publisher in connection with a then forthcoming book. Two members of Trump's staff also attended the interview, which was recorded with Trump's knowledge and consent. Before the interview, the media had published reports that at the end of Trump's term as President, a senior military official purportedly feared that Trump might order an attack on country A, and that the senior military official advised Trump against doing so. Upon greeting the writer, publisher, and his two staff members, Trump stated, Look what I found. This was the senior military official's plan of attack. Read it and just show. It's interesting. Later in the interview, Trump engaged in the following exchange.

Well, with Millie, let me see that. I'll show you an example. He said that I wanted to attack Iran. Isn't it amazing? I have a big pile of papers. This thing just came up. Look. This was him. They presented me this. This is off the record, but they presented me this. This was him. This was the defense department and him. We looked at something. This was him. This wasn't done by me. This was him. All sorts of stuff. It's pages long. Wait a minute. Let's see.

I just found...

Isn't that amazing? This totally wins my case, except it is highly confidential secret. There's a secret information. Look at this. You attack. And by the way, isn't that incredible? Yeah. I was just saying because we were talking about it. And he said, he wanted to attack Iran. He's in the papers. This was done by the military, given to me. I think we can probably... We'll have to see. Yeah, we'll have to try to I could have deglacified. See, as President, I could have deglacified. Now I can't, but this is- Now we have a problem. Isn't that interesting? Yeah.

At the time of this exchange, the writer, the publisher, and Trump's two staff members did not have security clearances or any need to know any classified information about a plan of attack on country A. The document that Trump possessed and showed on July 21st, 2021, is charged as Count 32 in this superseding indictment.

Yauza. That's the legal term for that.

So yet another tape recording. Which is fascinating. So I'm going to make a comment about Judge Canon. So you ready for it? Go for it. Here's an allegation in the indictment where you have the former president on tape revealing information that is classified. We have just heard from Mr. Butler, who has not on this tape, but he has now been very public, given an interview to CNN, where he has talked about overhearing an ambassador to Australia who got information from Donald Trump and disseminates it. What is my point? That there is substantial evidence of not just retention of these documents, but dissemination. This is from an intelligence community perspective, this is your worst nightmare. It is the what happened to this information? Why am I raising Judge Canon? In her discussion with respect to SEPA, the Classified Information Procedures Act and pretrial motions. One of the things she said is, I don't really see why Donald Trump, as the former President, shouldn't be able to get access again to all this highly classified information. This is me with a bit of hyperbole and paraphrasing. After all, he used to have access to it, and it's not like he's charged with dissemination.

The idea that she would focus on, well, there's not a charge of it. There's evidence of it, but he's not charged with it. That's the reason that he should get this. The partisan nature of her rulings is, I don't know, what's more than palpable? It's like it screams. It's on its face. Evident.

Obvious.

Let's get our thesaurus It hits you over the head.

She is right in that a criminal defendant has a right to see and review the evidence against him, like the prosecution's case. Yeah, of course. It does not mean that in the circumstances where some of that evidence includes really sensitive information, that there can't be limits on how and when you view it and for how long. It just seems like it's unfettered access that she's seeking for him on the view that as president, he would have had access to it anyway, and A lot of people wonder how Eileen Canon got assigned to this case. It's a very easy answer. It's two answers, Marco Rubio, Rick Scott. There were three vacancies for the Biden administration in the Southern district of Florida. With district court vacancies, the home state senators have the option to provide their blue slip, saying that they are sent to the president's nominee. If they withhold the blue slip, the nominee obviously does not go forward. Because Rubio and Scott have made very clear that they're not going to provide their blue slip, they're sent to one of the Biden colonies for any of these district courts lots in the Southern district of Florida, those vacancies have remained unfilled throughout President Biden's presidency, which means that in the Southern district of Florida, there are exactly three district court judge is available.

So when you go in the wheel for a case, like when they literally put a case in the wheel to turn it to find a judge for it, you basically have a one in three chance that you're going to get Judge Canon, and lo and behold, they got Judge Canon.

Everything that follows, they're from.

Yes. I mean, it is a question of politics. I think I obviously think about the courts a lot. This judge, what she is doing, her lack of experience, the fact that there aren't other alternatives for recusal, all of this to me, indicates the just climate around nominating and confirming federal judges.

Melissa, just to plug our book again, one thing that I noticed here is in the indictment, They don't use names of people who are not being charged. They don't want to invite privacy. They don't want to cast dispersions. That's a standard thing in both federal and state prosecution. This is one example of that where we know that it's General Mark Milley that is not explicitly referenced in the indictment. One thing that I thought was, again, really useful, as I noted, is there's all sorts of places we're going to hear about attorney one, an attorney two, and co-conspirator one. It is really great to go back because for each of the indictments, we have a cast of characters for that indictment. Then there's an overarching cast of characters. There's just many ways to recall who are all these people and to be able to look them up and get a quick overview of who they are, what disciplinary actions are being taken against them, what crimes they are alleged to have committed, et cetera. A little wrap sheet on some of these people. Let's turn now to one last from the Southern district of Florida indictment read by Renee Elise Goldsbury.

The Defendant's Concealment of Boxes. On May 11th, 2022, the grand jury issued a subpoena, the May 11th subpoena, to the office of Donald J. Trump, requiring the production of all documents with classification markings in the possession, custody, or control of Trump or the office of Donald J. Trump. Two attorneys companies representing Trump, Trump attorney 1 and Trump attorney 2, informed Trump of the May 11th subpoena, and he authorized Trump attorney 1 to accept service. On May 23, 2022, Trump met with Trump attorney 1 and Trump attorney 2 at the Mar-a-Lago Club to discuss the response to the May 11th subpoena. Trump attorney 1 and Trump attorney 2 told Trump that they needed to search for documents that would be responsive to the subpoena and provide a that there had been compliance with the subpoena. Trump, in sum and substance, made the following statements, among others, as memorialized by Trump attorney 1. A, I don't want anybody looking. I don't want anybody looking through my boxes. I really don't. I don't want you looking through my boxes. B, Well, what if we? What happens if we just don't respond at all or don't play ball with them?

C, Wouldn't it be it better if we just told them we don't have anything here? D, well, look, isn't it better if there are no documents?

Melissa, what's your take? The former president spiriting away boxes before the police arrive. It seems like an allegation of messing with a crime scene before the police come to see whether the gun that was used in the murder can be removed from the crime scene before they get there.

A little shocking, but- I I think it's really interesting here that this didn't have to be an indictable offense. I mean, you had the documents, whether purposefully or inadvertently, someone asked you to return them to the National Archives, you return them. And this might all have gone away. But instead, there's this allegation that not only do they sequester and try to hide some of the documents, they then move them around in order to prevent the authorities from recovering them. It's also, again, I think, worth noting that this isn't just an indictment of Donald Trump. He has co-defendants here, and they're not big names. This is Walt Nauta, who is the President's bodyman. Don't get excited, folks at home. This just literally just means that this is the guy who follows him around and carries his briefcase. There's also Carlos de Oliveira, who wasn't in the initial indictment, but was later added as a co-defendant in the superseding indictment when it was discovered that there were all of these efforts to move the boxes around and to hide the fact that they moved the boxes around by allegedly destroying certain parts of the security videotapes that would have made clear that they had moved the boxes around.

I wonder if these defendants were added just because they're there and they're clearly involved in this, or Was that a strategic choice in the hopes that these co-defendants might have flipped on Donald Trump and provided more information, and they ultimately have not?

Well, you always want to see if you can get a cooperator, especially if they're lower level. The traditional rule is you go from low to high. You want to flip people and they want to be cooperating up. You don't want to give that break to somebody high cooperating down. But it's also useful to bring a charge of obstruction or false statements. What Donald Trump used to disparage and refer to when I was in the Mueller investigation as process crimes. But the reason these process crimes are useful is, one, obviously, you can flip people based on them. But two, it's such great evidence of intent. You don't obstruct if you didn't do anything wrong. Why is he spiriting all these things away? One of the things I love is the allegation is not just two forms of obstruction, of moving things around so they can't be responded to by this subpoena. So when the DOJ comes, the DOJ is led to believe this is everything when they've actually moved boxes away. Not only are they trying to get rid of the videotape, those are the two charged forms. But one of the things they do is one of Trump's lawyers is like, We have to produce everything.

So one of the things that's alleged is they actually are keeping this away from that lawyer. So the lawyer himself is thinking, Oh, I've now produced everything. One of the things that's going to be really unusual if this were ever to come to trial is the types of witnesses who are going to appear. It's not just these are going to be Republican loyalists, but these are going to be some of Donald Trump's own lawyers who are all going to be providing evidence that will go to the actions he took and his mental state. Sort of remarkable set of facts. It also gives you a sense of just how deep the Jack Smith investigation went in terms of getting this granular.

Yeah.

So one of the sad things about this is this case is what we used to call in the business a rock crusher. This is just such a strong case. He was clearly going to bring it. And so this The sad part of this is that I really think normally you don't want somebody like Butler doing an interview on TV who's going to be a government witness. It's obviously his right to do that. But as a prosecutor, you're not thinking that's a great thing for your case. But in this case, I think if that's the only way that the public is going to get more information about what happened, it's better than nothing. Melissa, thank you so much. I'm going to see you. Literally, I could say, I'll see you on campus.

I will see you on campus, and I'll see you around as we continue to discuss our book, The Trump Indictments: The Historic Charging Documents with Commentary, that's now available. It's been fun, Andrew, hanging out here on prosecuting Donald Trump.

Our sincere gratitude to Peter Coyote and Renee Elise Goldsbury for reading the excerpts today. They were just terrific. This episode was produced by Vicky Virgilina. Katherine Anderson and Bob Mallory are our audio engineers, our head of audio production production is Bryson Barnes. Ayesha Turner is the executive producer for MSNBC Audio, and Rebecca Cutler is the Senior Vice President for Content Strategy at MSNBC. Search for Prosecuting Donald Trump wherever you get your podcast and follow the series.

Hey, it's Chris Hayes. This week on my podcast, Why Is This Happening? Author and philosopher, Judith Butler, on their new book, Who's Afraid of Gender?

The question of gender is fundamentally linked with the future of our democratic world. We would be, I think, making a mistake by imagining that it's simply identity politics or that it's fragmenting the left or that it's an artificial notion. It is not. That's this week on Why Is This Happening. Search for whyisthishappening wherever you're listening right now and subscribe.